Featured Groups

Ban the posting of Instructables that use of dead animals or parts thereof

As one who respects all life, and who is sickened and repulsed by the "Instructables" which attempt to use dead animals or parts of them as some kind of demented joke, I propose that Instructables.com should ban the posting of articles dealing with or including dead animals or parts thereof. (And before anyone asks... Yes, I've been a vegetarian for 30 years. No, I don't wear leather or fur or other animal parts. No, I'm not a "wuss" - I just feel that the use or exploitation of living things or formerly living things without their consent is immoral.) eBay seems to have survived just fine with their policy of restricting the sale of animal products to a very specific list; I think Instructables should take the moral high-road and institute an outright ban on the use of animals in posts.

There is nothing wrong with having a personal opinion, but asking for the "banning" of any information of use is how the Soviet Union was born. It is not how the free world operates however. I despise most novels, but I don't ask for them to be removed from the shelves of bookstores..."Fahrenheit 451" all over again only not just with books, but with all displeasing information of any kind? That is NOT the world I want ot live in. Sorry. Even if I agreed with you about the treatment of dead animals, I would not want to ban the information.

Culturedropout, So where do you draw the line on "animals or parts thereof" would an instrucable showing you how to clean fine china be wrong ?? after all some fine bone china is upto 50 % dead animal or animal parts, What if I was to do one on how to fix a coleman stove ? would it to need banning because the stove used a leather cup in the fuel tank ?? And are you going to ban all the ones on driving because the master cylinder in the braking system may also contains leather parts, yea it's not just used for the seats?? (( Ok only skunkbait drives trucks with no brakes and I'm sure he can warn you of the danger of driving with no brakes <>)) And I don't see instructables on how to club baby seals, or one on how to make hamburgers by tossing a live cow into a tree chipper.... And I'm not calling you a wuss, but your should look at some the wussy acts like the product labeling acts, before shooting down instructables, and even before you say or think your a vegetarian, some products like rolaids are made from shrimp shells, nice if you have an allergy to shrimps no where does it say on the package made from ground up animals, but it does say it's got calcium, but so do shrimp shells... Hundreds of products don't actually list off there full ingredient's... Soap is another interesting product some say Tallow other say rendered fat, other say Oil, most say nothing, but which is the one for a true vegetarian to use..... Maybe you could do an instrucatable on how to be a vegetarian, and this would allow people to have a little more insight into the world of a vegetarian.....

To the original question I am too against any animal exploitation - for food / testing / clothes / instructables. I am a veggie teen myself But banning such things on instructables wont hit the target and will do damage - like any kind of censorship. I am against banning this explicitly The way to go is change the attitude of people. Show them in fact that animals are not for us to exploit and that we can be happy without exploiting them Now lets think together - Is the mouse mouse or the fur jacket products of animal exploitation ? Yes. Is it needed or moral ? The question is global - Its not just about the instructables website Please stick to the point of overall animal exploitation. The use of animals for food is another question (my answer to it is No as well) and has its extra issues which are not related to the topic here

im not asking that people berate me here, but i do not think it is right to attempt to restrict the information on this site for a reason such as this. if you think back, humans have been using "dead animals or parts of them as some kind of demented joke" for thousands of years. think of the native americans. they for how many years, had used the feathers of dead birds for decoration and inking, or the bones and skins of dead deer and bear? what about the native Alaskans? they were known to use the bones of whales washed on the beach as hunting tools. im not sure, but killing one animal with another animals parts seem a little "iffy" to me. i would be in complete agreement with you if the subject were still living animals, but it isnt. the subject is "dead animals or parts".

on another note, which i apologize if seems rude, this is just selfish on the groups part. if you were to take all the members of this group, nay, all the instructables users who feel this way, versus all instructables users, you would see this group is in a great minority. this site isnt here to promote moral beliefs and arguments, it is here to share knowledge with others. as ledzep567 said "you dont like it, dont click the link."

People have owned slaves "for thousands of years" too. That doesn't mean that it was ever right, nor that it's okay to keep doing it. This has been done to death, and I had left it alone. I'm not sure what got the posts on this topic started again. I'm not sure which "group" you're referring to as being selfish; I represent only myself. That being said, I'm sure I'm not alone, and in any event, I'm not the type of person who cares much about what the majority thinks. If I see something I think is wrong, I'll challenge it. I'm sure there's some clever analogy involving lemmings or sheep or something on this subject. With regard to "promoting moral beliefs" I'd have to argue that you can't separate actions in one place or context from the rest of your life. Either you believe something and follow it consistently, or you don't really believe it. The site is great, and I enjoy it quite a bit. My intent in starting this discussion was to at least raise the awareness of the subject, and I think that's been accomplished. What people choose to do with that awareness is up to them.

allow me to clarify, when i said group, i was referring to the group who believes strongly the subject of this thread. but, you are right in bringing it up. your are the only one here arguing it. people have indeed owned slaves for thousands of years, and guess what; they still do! why dont you say anything about work-horses if you are so intent on bringing slavery into it? why not pack-mules? why not seeing-eye dogs? im not saying there is anything wrong with you standing up for what you believe, when i see something i think is wrong, i too challenge it. in regards to your quoting my statement of "moral beliefs", i believe in this matter, separating morals from the action is justifiable. knowledge, in order to truly exist, must be unbiased. it cannot have anything to do with moral beliefs. as an example, if something were done with the intent to maim or kill, then it was not done in the name of science. if someone were to brutally murder an animal ,and somehow it had miraculously cured cancer, the fact would be that it cured cancer. but if the murder was necessary, would the knowledge be that the death cured cancer or the murder did? as for most of this, i respect you for it. there is really nothing more admirable than a person standing up for what they believe in.

hmmm i think we should ban all instructables that take part in the actions of soldering, breaking things, moving of electrical currents, knitting, growing plants, and that include wood or metal in their projects. seeing as we are modifying them without their consent, heck they may even be able to think! i think you have no right to restrict the information on this site. you dont like it, dont click the link.

Ignoring the snide tone of your post, "I think" that this is an important issue that deserves discussion. Aside from the fact that some of these fairly disturbing "projects" are often featured on the front page of an otherwise thoroughly enjoyable and useful site, turning a blind eye to cruelty and indifference that tears your heart out isn't a healthy way to live.

I wonder, sometimes; do people who refuse to usehttp://instructables.com/community/Ban-the-posting-of-Instructables-that-use-of-dead-/?comments=all#post comment animal products because it "disrespects" the animals actually fear deep-down that the animals will come back and haunt them?

I must be going soft in my old age, but... come on guys, CD isn't trying to convert us all to some zany religion, or persuade us that he/she has made a machine that defies the laws of thermodynamics, just make a point about a perceived moral issue with certain Instructables.

Also I almost just misspelled "perceived".. it's been a long week

I was told the golden rule of trying not to offend people was "you can't argue taste, and you can't argue humour, but anything else is fair game". I'm just trying to point out that a lot of people have no moral problem with this content and in keeping with the site's spirit it shouldn't be outright banned, without being unnecessarily derisive.

well, if you think that the "crueulty" suposedly displayed in these wonderfuly crafted instructables is more worthy of a whistle blowing topic post then lets say THE MASSACRE IN DARFUR then maybe YOU are the one "turning a blind eye to cruelty and indifference that tears your heart out"

No - I'm quite aware of all the evil things people are doing to each other in the world, and it's very sad. Your comment actually brings up a good point, though. Since we're a supposedly "superior" species, why is it then that _no_other_animal_ wages war against its own kind with the aim of wiping out entire groups, solely on the basis of disagreements about mythology, or out of lust for things like money or gold or oil, or maybe even just because they're the wrong color? No other species locks hundreds of thousands of its own kind in cages for years or decades. Other animals will fight over food, or territory, but they haven't invented (and used) weapons of mass destruction on each other, or ignorantly wallowed in their own filth until they've nearly wrecked the planet. So -yes- I'm aware people do awful things to each other for seemingly arbitrary reasons (or for no reason at all). As a "superior" species, shouldn't they be able to see that what they're doing is wrong, and stop? Or could it be that they're not really all that "superior" after all?

why is it then that _no_other_animal_ wages war against its own kind with the aim of wiping out entire groups, solely on the basis of disagreements about mythology, or out of lust for things like money or gold or oil, or maybe even just because they're the wrong color?

Ants, termites and bees all wage war on other colonies that are not in direct competition for resources.

So do troops of monkeys, lemurs and chimpanzees.

Dolphins have been observed bullying, kidnapping, murdering and even raping members of other schools, and of schools of other species.

In what way are humans "superior" to other species? It has been scientifically invalid to refer to later products of evolution as superior to earlier products for over a century.

"WMD" is just a matter of scale - compared to "no weapons", the clubs and rocks used by chimpanzees are WMD.

. Yeah. I'm still trying to figure out this "humans are superior" business. He says we are superior and then provides examples of why we're not.. As far as I can tell, humans are NOT superior to other species, but I suppose that depends on one's definition of superior. The only thing we have going for us is intelligence (and an opposable thumb), but high IQ does NOT equal smarter. Personally, I find my dogs to be vastly superior to most h. sapiens. (Cats are evil, but that's another story. heehee)

At least a couple of other people said that we were at the top of the food chain, superior animals, etc. so that somehow gave us the right to treat other (supposedly inferior) animals as we wished. That's what I was referring to, and that's why the word "superior" was in quotes.

This is a thought that I had about a year ago that is somewhat on topic: Is getting syrup from trees cruel? Think about it if we were trees and trees were humans. They would pricks us, collect our blood, boil down the blood into a thick mass of blood cells, and then pour it on there waffles and say yum

. That depends on whether or not you believe plants can feel pain and the procedure actually causes pain, if they can. . A lot depends on your definition of "feel." I've read that plants produce a measurable response to cutting and rough handling, but I have a hard time calling that "feeling pain." And the same ppl claim to get a response from yelling at the plants, which I have a hard time believing. . I don't believe plants can feel pain (or anything else), so I see no ethical issues with harvesting the sap.

i disagree with your view. i love eating meat. its delicious, and a good source of nutrients. i hate tofu. i dont mind leather. i do, however, hate animal skins and think they are ugly. i am with you, however, against dissections. there are plenty of good videos out there on animals being dissected, the school doesnt need to buy 300 frogs so we can see whats inside.

Yeah, let all those future doctors "practice" on live, and actual patients rather then on practice instrument use before hand. Hi, I am Jack, I am your surgeon today. This is the first time I have ever held a knife in my hand......

Those students move on to become doctors. Given the very short supply of dissectable human body's, don't you think it better to let the students learn their dissection skills on dead animals? And, as a teacher, I can tell you that students learn far more, and far more quickly, by getting their hands dirty than by looking at pictures. Nice glossy photos in a book sanitise the process, and allow the same lack of respect for life ("it's only a picture, it's not real") that video-game violence does.

Okay. So by your logic, because we did something distasteful in the past because we _had_to_, we should continue the practice now, even though it's no longer necessary or reasonable? A brief look at history says that's probably not a good idea. What have you done to understand how the animals you eat are raised and killed? Have you visited a factory farm? Spent some time in a slaughterhouse? Or do you just assume that the cute graphics of a talking cow dancing happily into the kitchen for dinner are really what it's like? As for the "demented" comment, I'm not sure I see your point. If they can mutilate animals, then surely they're tough enough to take a little criticism. Or am I supposed to be somehow frightened into silence by this?

1. We didn't have to - we became able to exploit a much more energy-dense food-source. If you exclude animal products from your diet, then you have to resort to artificial additives to replace lost nutrients.

2. Ahem: I am satisfied that the meat I eat was raised and killed in a humane way. Our local butcher can even tell you the name your steak used to answer to. I know about factory farming, which is why I don't buy factory-farmed meat. Do you drink milk? How was it extracted from the cow? By a freckle-faced Swiss milk-maid with a bucket over each shoulder, or a factory-scale mechanised production line?

3. No, I was merely encouraging some manners from you - it is extremely poor form to criticise somebody behind their back. Given that Canida created some of the projects you object to, do you honestly expect to have your demands met?

You'd be much more likely to get any sort of positive reception if you started posting Instructables that lack all animal products.

1. I don't know where you got that. It's not true. A healthy vegetarian diet based on natural foods is easy to achieve. I haven't taken vitamins or used any sort of supplements for 20 years; I used to take vitamins because people like you told me I had to as a vegetarian, but I stopped.

2. No, I don't drink milk.

3. Are you the hall monitor, to feel you need to "encourage some manners from" me? *I* didn't criticize _anyone_ behind their back. I pointed out that I felt animals should not be used as decorations or playthings. I wasn't even aware who was posting the things; I just kept getting them thrust in my face on the front page of the site.

There are a tiny number of projects of which you disapprove, on grounds of your personal moral compass.

Do you:

a) PM the projects' authors and politely ask them to remove the projectb) Use the "flag" system to highlight it as "unsuitable"c) Start a forum thread labelling the authors as sickening, repulsive, demented and immoral?

You chose c. Damn right you need a lesson in manners.

(And you ought to get your facts right about ebay as well - there are only two things they disallow regarding animal products: endangered species and some (not all) live animals.)

Actually, I believe I described the projects that way - not the authors. I was under the impression that the forums were for the discussion of posted projects, so I started a discussion. Maybe I'm not the only one who "needs a lesson in manners"...

I'm not trying to "wheedle out of" anything; I intended it to be a public discussion from the beginning, because I wanted to know what others here thought about it. It's hard to have a public discussion with private messages. If whatever agenda you're pursuing requires you to insist that I insulted the authors rather than their projects, I guess I'll just have to live with that.

If you (ever) posted an Instructable, putting in hours of work and effort, and then later you found somebody had started (without letting you know) a forum thread referring to your work as sickening, repulsive, demented and immoral, are telling me that you wouldn't feel insulted yourself?

I guess if I were involved in something that's somewhat controversial (and things like eating meat, wearing fur, and making 'art' with dead things certainly are) then I wouldn't be too surprised that someone was offended by it. And, for the record, I posted a number of "how to" types of articles on my own web sites before I heard about "Instructables".

. These things are only controversial to a very small group of people ... but being in the minority doesn't mean one is wrong. They are only controversial if one assumes that humans are superior to other animals and that killing an inferior animal for food/clothing/shelter is wrong. I'm not willing to take either position, much less both of them.. While I don't agree with it, I can understand those who are against using animals for art or ornamentation. As long as the animals are harvested in a humane manner, I don't have a problem with it.. > I posted a number of "how to" types of articles on my own web sites. But you made no attempt to establish any cachet here before casting aspersions on those that did not kowtow to your dogma (not that it would have helped). Instead of making moral judgments and and throwing around derogatory labels, why not just politely state your opinion and call for a discussion? Something like "The dead animal iBles upset me. I don't think it's right to exploit animals like that. Should they be banned? What do you think?". And I don't think his comment was really about iBles in particular, but any project that one expends considerable effort on. In American English, that would be: "How would you feel if you someone reacted to something you were proud of with such inflammatory language?"

. Give it up. Even if you are right, the only ppl who have bothered to respond to the topic are unabashed, unashamed carnivores. We all seem to agree that animals should be treated humanely, we just draw the line in a different place. . We're not going to convince you that harvesting animals is a perfectly normal part of Life and you're not going to convince us that it's a crime against Nature. . As others have pointed out, you would have had MUCH better luck if you hadn't tried to cram your opinion down our throats. Not saying you would have converted any of us, but we would have been a lot more polite. Most ppl here can agree to disagree - you don't appear to be one of them.

I wasn't aware that I had tried to cram anything anywhere. A discussion/debate is the process of trying to get the other side to see your point of view. What I have tried to do is to state facts and my personal experiences; if that's considered rude, then so be it, I guess. You've made a pretty general statement about me, considering how little you know me. I can agree to disagree on a lot of things; the unnecessary killing and/or macabre display of innocent animals isn't one of them.

> I wasn't aware that I had tried to cram anything anywhere. . I believe you. The fact that several ppl have pointed it out and you still don't get it leads me to believe that further discussion of the point is useless. . > You've made a pretty general statement about me ... . I said "appear to be." Show me my tentative conclusion is wrong.

Actually, it has one. But when it shows up in full color on the front page, it's kind of hard to avoid. In any event, just because it contains a warning doesn't make it any less disturbing just to know it exists.

I just feel that the use or exploitation of living things or formerly living things without their consent is immoral.)

Does this mean you feel it is immoral to walk on the ground? It contains lots of formerly living plants and animals. You will walk over them, but you find taxidermy, a form of honoring the creature either for real or symbolically, is repulsive? Maybe we should ban those that want to ban instructables for self-contradictory reasoning? ;-)

I often look to our natural environment for moral guidelines, because we know that an animal's motive for doing something is purely natural, and usually out of necessity.

The nature of animals has led me to believe that killing in itself is not wrong, only the motive or method can be wrong. While I respect your decision to refrain from meat, I must insist that you respect mine to act just as many other species on this planet do, and eat/enjoy my meat.

As the quote the Voltaire made popular says, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

I think Instructables is more about pushing the boundaries of "political correctness" (or even "morality", if you prefer) in the OTHER direction, especially if you're seriously suggesting (as you appear to be) banning all cooking instructables that involve meat...

I'm suprised that canida hasn't popped in on this topic. But honestly, it's not going to happen. Heck, I hope I get stuffed and mounted after I die. Then I can be petted whenever I scare away burglars.

In the nature : - Good morning Mr. Rabbit !- Good morning Mrs. Fox !- May I ask you a service ?- Sure !- Well, I'm feeling really hungry today, and I have to feed my boys and girls. Would you mind to come at home for our dinner ?- Absolutely not ! I'll be glad to help your family and species to survive !- Thanks so much Mr Rabbit !

Animals can't consent to being exploited, or protest it effectively. So as a "superior" species, it's up to us to take care of them. As I said to another poster, there's a difference between necessity and desire. Other animals eat each other to survive, because they have no choice. We, on the other hand, do. To anyone willing to do a little research, it's apparent that we can thrive on a meat-free diet. So why perpetuate an industry that is rife with pain, suffering, and abuse if you don't have to?